| |
|
By Kyle Drennen
On Monday, the network morning shows breathlessly hailed the latest partisan Democratic effort to attack President Trump, resurrecting a lawsuit accusing Trump of violating a clause in the Constitution because of his business interests. Such charges were hyped by the same media that excused the Clinton Foundation scandal that swirled around Hillary Clinton.
At the top of NBC’s Today, co-host Savannah Guthrie proclaimed: “Headed to court? Two attorneys general now say they will file a lawsuit against President Trump, reportedly accusing him of profiting from being president.” Minutes later, she told viewers: “Two attorneys general saying they are planning to sue President Trump and accuse him of violating anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution. That lawsuit reportedly set to focus on alleged payments to Trump businesses from foreign governments.”
What Guthrie, a former lawyer, failed to explain was that those “payments” were in the form of foreign officials staying in Trump hotels or hosting events at Trump properties. It wasn’t as if they were donating millions to a family charity in hopes of currying favor, as they did in the case of Hillary Clinton.
In fact, there was a strong case to be made that the former Secretary of State violated the Emoluments Clause. Even The Washington Post – which was the first to report on the Trump lawsuit – wondered in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign whether the Consitutional issue was “a problem for Hillary Clinton.”
Instead of actually holding Clinton accountable, the networks helped her campaign knock down accusations of corruption.
To NBC’s credit, correspondent Peter Alexander at least identified the lawsuit against Trump as a Democrat-led effort:
That new lawsuit to be announced today accuses the President of violating the Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments without the okay of Congress. Just the latest move by Democrat attorneys general to challenge the President and his policies....the attorneys general of Washington D.C. and Maryland, two Democrats, are slated to announce a major lawsuit against the President as early as this afternoon...
Neither ABC nor CBS bothered to point out the party affiliation of the public officials bringing the suit.
Leading off ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos announced: “Overnight, President Trump’s family joins him in the White House as he faces a new lawsuit over his global business empire that takes millions in payments from foreign governments.”
In a later report, White House Correspondent Jon Karl sensationalized:
...the President faces a new lawsuit this morning that is unprecedented in American history. Overnight, the D.C. attorney general’s office confirmed to ABC News that D.C. and Maryland will sue President Trump today, alleging a breach of anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution....It’s the first time a state government has filed such a lawsuit against a president.
Talking to former federal special counsel Ken Starr in a segment that followed, Stephanopoulos eagerly wondered: “They say it’s a violation of the Emoluments Clause. How serious a threat is this to President Trump?” Starr replied: “You’ve got to take any litigation seriously, but allegations are allegations. Now, in my 40 years of practicing law, I’ve seen a lot of allegations that have blown up in smoke.”
In a news brief for CBS This Morning, co-host Gayle King touted: “The President faces a new challenge this morning over the Trump organization ties to other countries. CBS News has confirmed the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia will file a lawsuit today.” Fellow co-host Charlie Rose chimed in: “They claim President Trump violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution when the businesses he owns accepted millions in payments from foreign governments.”
Here are excerpts of the coverage on all three morning shows:
Today
7:03 AM ET
 SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: President Trump facing some new heat possibly as well this morning. Another busy week getting under way in Washington, so let’s walk you through some of what’s gonna happen. Two attorneys general saying they are planning to sue President Trump and accuse him of violating anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution. That lawsuit reportedly set to focus on alleged payments to Trump businesses from foreign governments.
(...)
7:04 AM ET
PETER ALEXANDER: That new lawsuit to be announced today accuses the President of violating the Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments without the okay of Congress. Just the latest move by Democrat attorneys general to challenge the President and his policies.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Attorneys General to Sue Trump; DC & Maryland AG’s Allege Breach of Constitutional Oath]
This morning, the President is facing new legal trouble, this time not related to Russia. The Washington Post reporting that the attorneys general of Washington D.C. and Maryland, two Democrats, are slated to announce a major lawsuit against the President as early as this afternoon, alleging that he violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House. Essentially breaking his promise to keep his private business interests separate from his public role as president.
(...)
8:02 AM ET
KRISTEN WELKER: President Trump may be facing yet another controversy, this time, according to The Washington Post, the attorney generals of Washington D.C. and Maryland, both Democrats, are expected to announce a major lawsuit against the President as early as today. The suit alleges that the President violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions of dollars in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.
(...)
GMA
7:03 AM ET
(...)
 JON KARL: And on top of all that, the President faces a new lawsuit this morning that is unprecedented in American history.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trump Faces New Lawsuit; D.C. & Maryland to Sue Over Foreign Payments]
Overnight, the D.C. attorney general’s office confirmed to ABC News that D.C. and Maryland will sue President Trump today, alleging a breach of anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution. In the lawsuit, which was first reported by The Washington Post, the attorneys general allege the President “has broken his promises to separate his public duties from his private businesses.” It’s the first time a state government has filed such a lawsuit against a president.
(...)
7:10 AM ET
STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, we have this lawsuit this morning from the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, D.C. about those foreign payments to the President’s corporation. They say it’s a violation of the Emoluments Clause. How serious a threat is this to President Trump?
KEN STARR: You’ve got to take any litigation seriously, but allegations are allegations. Now, in my 40 years of practicing law, I’ve seen a lot of allegations that have blown up in smoke.
(...)
8:02 AM ET
AMY ROBACH: And the big story this morning, President Trump facing a new legal battle. The attorneys general of Washington, D.C. and Maryland are filing a lawsuit over his business dealings.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trump Face ‘Corruption’ Lawsuit; Foreign Payments in the Spotlight]
They’re accusing the President of violating anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by not separating himself from his companies. The suit, first reported by The Washington Post, claims the President accepted millions of dollars in payments and benefits from foreign governments since taking office.
(...)
CBS This Morning
7:30 AM ET
 GAYLE KING: The President faces a new challenge this morning over the Trump organization ties to other countries. CBS News has confirmed the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia will file a lawsuit today.
CHARLIE ROSE: They claim President Trump violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution when the businesses he owns accepted millions in payments from foreign governments. So far, the White House has not replied to our request for comment.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
During a panel discussion on Monday’s NBC Today the hosts and pundits all agreed that President Trump would almost certainly commit perjury if he ever testified under oath in the Russia investigation. The group of liberal journalists were eager to convict Trump even while acknowledging that former President Bill Clinton actually got away with the crime.
At the top of the segment, co-host Savannah Guthrie noted how, during a Friday press conference, “the President himself raised the specter of testifying.” She asked Wallace: “Is that a good idea?” Wallace declared: “It’s not a good idea because he has a very – and whether you love him or you hate him, I think people can acknowledge he has a very loose relationship with the truth.”
The MSNBC anchor went on to argue: “So it’s one thing in a political theater where his supporters say he’s sort of blowing up convention....It’s another thing entirely in a court of law where if you lie or if you say something one time and say something different another, it’s called perjury.”
Fill-in co-host Willie Geist touted George W. Bush’s former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer warning that Trump was “walking into a, quote, ‘giant perjury trap.’”Turning to Kornacki, he pressed: “How much could these comments, these tweets, these public statements come back to haunt him?”
Kornacki responded: “And if he presses forward with this, if he ends up under oath, if he ends up being deposed, if he ends up in some situation where he says something that can be contradicted later on, it could end up being a perjury situation.”
However, unlike his colleagues, Kornacki at least had the presence of mind to recall for viewers a president who was actually guilty of perjury:
But I think one thing we have to keep in mind is this is ultimately still a political question. Think of the last president who was impeached, Bill Clinton. There was no dispute from his supporters and defenders that he had committed perjury. The question was, did that perjury then rise to an impeachable level? And it was a political dispute. Democrats said no, Republicans said yes. Republicans could impeach him, couldn’t remove him. So I still think that still – that same dynamic would stick here.
Wrapping up the exchange moments later, Wallace ranted:
I think the fact, though, that we’re talking about, “Yeah, he’s likely to perjure himself, but it won’t lead to impeachment,” suggests, again, just week after week, the bar keeps moving and it keeps getting lower and lower for this White House. Now they simply have to, “Maybe he’ll perjure himself, but he won’t get impeached over it.” It’s really an extraordinary time.
Once again, the president who already set that low bar was Bill Clinton.
The discussion of Trump testifying and whether he might say something untrue was a hypothetical scenario that has not happened. Apparently such left-wing wishful thinking is what passes for news these days.
Here is a full transcript of the June 12 segment:
7:06 AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: We’re joined now by Nicolle Wallace, host of MSNBC’s 4 p.m.hour Deadline: White House, good title. And MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki. Guys, good morning.
WILLIE GEIST: Hey, guys.
NICOLLE WALLACE: Good morning.
 GUTHRIE: Nicolle, I’ll start with you. The Sessions testimony is interesting, we’re going to get to that in a minute, but the President himself raised the specter of testifying. He was asked whether he’d be willing to testify under oath about these incidents that James Comey testified about and he said 100%. Is that a good idea?
WALLACE: It’s not a good idea because he has a very – and whether you love him or you hate him, I think people can acknowledge he has a very loose relationship with the truth. He trotted out birtherism for many, many years, then came back and said, “Never mind.” He had his aides go out and argue a demonstrably false fact about the number of people at his inauguration. So it’s one thing in a political theater where his supporters say he’s sort of blowing up convention, he’s standing up to it at least. It’s another thing entirely in a court of law where if you lie or if you say something one time and say something different another, it’s called perjury.
GEIST: So Steve, one of Nicolle’s old colleagues in the White House, Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary under George W. Bush, said effectively over the weekend to Donald Trump, “Stop talking.” He said you’re walking into a, quote, “giant perjury trap.” How much could these comments, these tweets, these public statements come back to haunt him?
STEVE KORNACKI: Yeah, no, I mean, what he’s saying, what Nicolle is saying, is true. And if he presses forward with this, if he ends up under oath, if he ends up being deposed, if he ends up in some situation where he says something that can be contradicted later on, it could end up being a perjury situation. But I think one thing we have to keep in mind is this is ultimately still a political question. Think of the last president who was impeached, Bill Clinton. There was no dispute from his supporters and defenders that he had committed perjury. The question was, did that perjury then rise to an impeachable level? And it was a political dispute. Democrats said no, Republicans said yes. Republicans could impeach him, couldn’t remove him. So I still think that still – that same dynamic would stick here.
GUTHRIE: Let’s talk about the Attorney General, because it’s being reported that he is going to be testifying in some fashion before the Senate Intelligence Committee. What’s at stake there, why is it important for him to get out there and clear the air?
KORNACKI: Yeah, and I mean, that public versus private question on Sessions is key here. Obviously you can understand why Sessions is going to want this is in private. You already know he’s going to face withering questions from Democrats about those two meetings that he had failed to disclose. Now we have word potentially in that private session last week Comey saying there was a third meeting. We’re getting denials from Sessions people, but obviously that’d be a major point of emphasis. Even if he denies that, even if there’s nothing there, he’s got a lot of explaining to do as it is.
GEIST: And real quick, Nicolle, I want to ask you about the tapes. Are there tapes? Are there not tapes? The President with another cryptic statement a couple of days ago? Of course Director Comey, on Thursday, quote, “Lordy, I hope there are tapes.”
WALLACE: Yeah, listen, I think if there were tapes we probably would have seen them. He loves – he loves the tease, a TV man loves a tease. And I think if there were tapes we probably would have seen some of them teased out. I think if there are tapes, they’re likely – they’re more likely to corroborate what Comey’s version of events are than Trump’s, because Comey is a prosecutor who took notes for the purpose of remembering his own actual experience in an investigation or interrogation. I think the fact, though, that we’re talking about, “Yeah, he’s likely to perjure himself, but it won’t lead to impeachment,” suggests, again, just week after week, the bar keeps moving and it keeps getting lower and lower for this White House. Now they simply have to, “Maybe he’ll perjure himself, but he won’t get impeached over it.” It’s really an extraordinary time.
GUTHRIE: Something tells me we’ll see you again this week, guys. Thank you very much. Lots to discuss.
GEIST: Thanks, guys.
|
|
By MRC Latino Staff
 As he nears the two-year mark of his ongoing journalistic jihad against Donald Trump, Univision senior news anchor Jorge Ramos continues to launch new streams of invectives and apocalyptic characterizations of the American President and his policies.
President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord is the latest hook for Ramos to tear into Trump. “He’s just taken the United States out of the only treaty that exists so that our children, and the children of our children, can live in a more or less stable place,” said Ramos of the move in a column published in Miami’s El Nuevo Herald.
“Trump is what happens when ignorance achieves power,” Ramos declares, deriding both the President’s appeal to American patriotism and his ‘America First’ policy in justifying U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.
“His [Trump’s] racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant and anti-environment ideas are dangerous for democracy, for freedom of expression and the future of the planet,” Ramos inveighs with surprisingly sweeping certitude and fury.
From his latest expressions, in addition to all the rest of his record these past two years covering the nascent Trump era in the United States, it is clear that Trump has seriously affected Ramos’ capacity for equanimity. The anchor’s words also continue to place him squarely in the realm of activism, not journalism.
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
It seems that, finally, liberal journalists are challenging the credulous, dictator-coddling filmmaking of lefty Oliver Stone. But maybe that’s because the communist-friendly director avoided tough questions when talking to Vladimir Putin about the 2016 presidential election. Appearing on CBS This Morning, Stone fawned over the Russian strong man, praising, “He believes in talk. He believes in peaceful co-existence.”
The director behind The Putin Interviews parroted Russian propaganda: “[Putin] said he wants to be our partner. He said very positive things about the United States. He talks about the partnerships.” The CBS co-hosts seemed disappointed that Stone didn’t blame the Russians for Hillary Clinton’s loss:
NORAH O'DONNELL: You sort of act as if you take what he says as fact.
OLIVER STONE: Well, I'm interviewing him. Why should he lie? And if he is, why should he omit something? I can understand if it's a state secret.
O'DONNELL: I mean, the clip you just played, unlike many partners of ours we never interfere with the domestic affairs of countries. I mean, that's a flat out lie.
STONE: If you say so. I'm not sure. I'm not there to argue with you. I'm not there to make judgments on whether or not they hacked the election or not. It's a complicated issue.
 Later, Stone irritated the journalists by again not blaming Russia. He wondered, “Why would [Putin] take the position that Trump was going to be your candidate? Didn't look like he was going to win. That was quite a shock. I'm of the belief that [Clinton] did not run a very good campaign.”
Co-host Charlie Rose offered up harsh criticism, noting that Foreign Policy magazine bashed the documentary for “spout[ing] the Kremlin line.” Gayle King explained that the Daily Beast called the film as a “wildly irresponsible love letter to Vladimir Putin.”
In contrast, when Stone appeared on this same show in 2012 to promote his far-left documentary about the Cold War, the hosts gushed over him. Back then, Rose offered softballs such as this: “Define your own political philosophy, as we talk about your own view of America.”
 CBS wasn’t the only outlet to suddenly discover that the liberal director goes soft on dictators. In Saturday’sWashington Post, Ann Hornaday complained, “Stone never brings up Russia’s involvement in Syria, media censorship in Russia or the mysterious murders of dissidents and journalists."
Like the reporters on CBS, Hornaday appeared irritated that the filmmaker doesn’t lay the blame for Clinton’s loss at the feet of Russia. If journalists expected Oliver Stone to ask tough questions of a dictator, they will be quite disappointed. But that’s something conservatives have known for years.
Stone’s documentary will air on Showtime. It was only at the very end of the eight minute segment that Rose admitted his network’s connection in promoting the special: “The Putin Interviews premieres tonight on Showtime, a division of CBS.”
A transcript is below:
 CBS This Morning 6/12/17 8:12:05 to 8:20:588 minutes and 53 seconds
NORAH O’DONNELL: Legendary director and writer Oliver stone is known for his award-winning movies like Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon," and Midnight Express. Over his career, the filmmaker has also he's interviewed controversial figures like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
CHARLIE ROSE: For his latest documentary, The Putin Interview, Stone was granted exclusive access to the Russian president. Stone interviewed Putin more than a dozen times over two years. No topic was off limits. In a conversation from February 2016, Stone asked Putin about the candidates in the United States presidential election.
[Clip.]
OLIVER STONE: But you do realize how powerful your answer could be if you said subtly that you preferred X candidate, he would go like that tomorrow, and if you said you didn't like Trump or something, right? What would happen? He’d win? You have that amount of power in the U.S.
VLADIMIR PUTIN [Through translator]: Unlike many partners of ours, we never interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries. That is one of the principles we stick to in our work.
ROSE: Oliver Stone is with us in his first television interview about the documentary. Good morning.
STONE: Good morning, Charlie.
ROSE: You had an extensive opportunity to take an evaluation of Vladimir Putin. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates once said of him when looked at him, “I see a cold blooded killer.” When you look at him after these two years, what do you see?
STONE: You’re asking for a full understanding of somebody who I spent 20 hours filming. 20 hours of film. He reveals himself more in the film than anybody I’ve ever seen. I’d like you to be the — If you still think he’s a killer after you see these 20 minutes, a cold-blooded one and so forth, that’s fine. You draw your own conclusions.
ROSE: I'm talking about what Robert Gates said. I’m not talking about what I said.
STONE: Do I agree with Mr. Gates?
ROSE: No. What do you see? In other words, that's what Gates saw. What do you see having spent this time with him?
STONE: A statesman who's very concerned with Russian national interests. He's represented those same interests pretty consistently pretty consistently since about 17 years in power, and he's there to talk. He believes in talk. He believes in peaceful co-existence. He said, — in the whole two years I never heard him bad mouth anybody. Talking about those candidates, he said very positive things about Hillary Clinton and positive things about Trump. But he never — he displayed— He didn't care who would win. In fact, if you look at — I think you’ve seen the fourth hour, he says very clearly, “You know, I’ve had four presidents. The four presidents change, the policy remains the same.”
O’DONNELL: You sort of act as if you take what he says as fact.
STONE: Well, I'm interviewing him. Why should he lie? And if he is, why should he omit something? I can understand if it's a state secret.
O’DONNELL: I mean, the clip you just played, unlike many partners of ours we never interfere with the domestic affairs of countries. I mean, that’s a flat out lie.
STONE: If you say so. I’m not sure. I'm not there to argue with you. I’m not there to make judgments on whether or not they hacked the election or not. It’s a complicated issue.
O’DONNELL: Why do you think he granted you such extensive access? Because you interviewed him over 20 hours.
STONE: 20 hours of film. It was quite a — I got to know him in the Snowden movie because I was interviewing Snowden in Moscow. Went over nine times to see Snowden to get this story right. And when I was there one of those times, I actually met him. I asked him about the Snowden affair. He filled me in. He was quite brilliant about his point of view of it. One thing led to another.
KING: Back to Norah's question, Oliver, the access you had. You were in his house, he was driving you around in the car. You went to the gym with him. You sat down and you ate with him. How were you able and allowed to have such access to him?
STONE: Maybe I'm a good interviewer. Maybe people like me. It’s not easy to say.
PUTIN: Did you ask him and he said okay?
STONE: No, no. He invited us. I think he wanted— He knew that he would be heard fairly and I'm not going to be an editor on this thing. I’m going to let him speak. And his point of view is not heard. You don't hear Russian in the west. You hear a dubbed voice. And sometimes a dubbed voice can be very harsh.
KING: He says his philosophy of life can be summed up in the philosophy of judo. That he’s taken judo since he as 11. Be flexible. Be disciplined. Is that what you found him to be?
STONE: Totally. I never saw him to be He works out every day.
KING: Yeah. Saw that.
STONE: He learned hockey at 62 something like that. He's playing two years later. He's a sportsman. But he's disciplined and flexible at the same time. That's what judo taught him. I never saw him lose his cool with us. I mean, a few times I pushed him. More than once. And I saw him get rattled and upset. But, you know, I have to continue this relationship. It's in my interest to encourage him to speak. So, Charlie, did one with him, too, which was very effective.
KING: Yep.
ROSE: Thank you. I asked him a number of things, including whether he was a czar? President Obama once said about him there's hardly anything ha goes on in Russia that he doesn't know about or is not responsible for.
STONE: I'm not sure about that, Charlie. Russia is a huge country with 11 time zones. There's an old saying, “The czar's ax were about to be executed.” About one third of them were. About the time it gets down to the province level and the village level, Moscow is a long way away.
ROSE: U.S. intelligence officials believe he did level. He's alluded to it. Said it might not have been the country but somebody in Russia might have done it.
KING: A patriot.
ROSE: A patriot might have done it. Don't you, having talked to him, having made a measurement of the man and being in Russia have some sense, and knowing America well have some sense of whether Russia meddled in the election?
STONE: I don't know, Charlie. Why would they? Miss Clinton is way in the lead. Why would you take the position that Trump was going to be your candidate? Didn’t look like he was going to win. That was quite a shock.. I'm of the belief that she did not run a very good campaign. And there was a lot of — on the footprints, will's a lot of confusion. The intel agency's people, that was not an estimate. That's an assessment.
O’DONNELL: Oliver, just to clarify, it is the consensus of all U.S. intelligence agencies that they attempted to meddle in the elect elections. It's not the consensus that they influenced the outcome, which I think is —
STONE: Okay.
O’DONNELL: So, those are two different things. Those are two separate things. Can I ask you, though, because the Russians are involved in not only meddling in foreign but they are involved in propaganda efforts as well. Foreign Policy wrote of your documentary, “It somehow manages to both spout the Kremlin line and fall back on the laziest American cliches about Russia.” Another said you gave him a love letter to Vladimir Putin with this documentary.
STONE: A love letter?
KING: An irresponsible love letter.
STONE: Your mom used to tell you you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. My camera was on him for around 20 hours over four visits. There's a certain behavior. It's in the eyes. It's in the body language. You see it.
O’DONNELL: I hear you.
STONE: You be the judge. If you think he’s lying—
ROSE: I think the most important thing we can say about this is, first of all, he's an interesting figure on the world stage TODAY, number one. Number two, whatever else he is, he's a strong nationalist. He believes in Russia and some say wants to have influence beyond Russia. Thank you for coming.
O’DONNELL: I do think ou give us an extended glimpse that we would not see —
STONE: We learn only from this. He said he wants to be our partner. He said very positive things about the United States. He talks about the partnerships. It's been a long time. He knows the presidents. We should listen.
KING: Fascinating, Oliver.
STONE: Thank you for having me.
ROSE: The Putin Interviews premieres tonight on Showtime, a division of CBS.
|
|
By Brent Baker
 Tonight ( Monday), CBS-affiliated Showtime begins The Putin Interviews, a four-night series of interview excerpts with Russian President Vladimir Putin, conducted by far-left film maker Oliver Stone who, judging by a previous series on Showtime, has an affinity for KGB-connected strongmen.
Back in 2012, during a segment on Showtime’s Untold History of the United States, Stone asserted the “lion’s share of credit” for ending the Cold War goes not to former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, but to former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev.
Stone hailed the communist as “a true visionary” and “the real democrat.”
From the episode of Showtime’s Untold History of the United States, “Reagan, Gorbachev & Third World: Revival of Fortune,” as first aired Monday night, December 31, 2012:
As far as Reagan’s much-vaunted role in winning the Cold War, the lion’s share of credit goes to Mikhail Gorbachev -- a true visionary and, it turns out, the real democrat. If Reagan had entered into the sincere partnership offered by Gorbachev, as Roosevelt did with Stalin in World War II, the world would have been transformed. But Ronald Reagan, at the least, let the chance to rid the world of nuclear weapons slip through his fingers, because he wouldn’t let go of a space fantasy.
“Appreciating Gorbachev’s extraordinary effort, a leading Soviet expert on the U.S. warned his American counterparts: ‘We will do the most horrible thing to you. We will leave you without an enemy.’”
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 There was civil unrest in Russia Monday, as anti-corruption protestors took to the streets all across the country during a national holiday celebration. Roughly 1,500 people were arrested for gathering to denounce their government. The White House came out strong and condemned Russia for cracking down on the peaceful protestors. All of the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) reported on the mass arrests during their evening broadcasts, but they all ignored the White House’s condemnation of the Russian government.
But on CNN’s The Lead, host Jake Tapper started the segment off by noting the Trump administration’s swift rebuke. “The White House this afternoon called on the Russian government to release demonstrators arrested earlier today in anti-corruption protests across Russia,” announced Tapper. “Press Secretary Sean spacer calling the arrests, which included minors, an affront to, quote, “core democratic values.”
Not only did Spicer note protesters, but he mentioned the arrests of journalists as well. “The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve a government that supports an open marketplace of ideas, transparent and accountable governance, equal treatment under the law and the ability to exercise their right without fear or retribution,” Spicer added.
Tapper leaned on CNN reporter Diana Magnay, who was in St. Petersburg, Russia, to explain what was happening on the ground. “Well, this is the second round of protests, Jake, called by Alexei Navalny, a Kremlin critic, and anti-corruption campaigner,” she explained to Tapper. “And he's managed to galvanize tens of thousands of people in more than 100 cities across this country today, the second time that they came out.”
“And the Kremlin, I think, has been taken back by the scale of these protests and has reacted both times by detaining hundreds of protests as most of them in Moscow and St. Petersburg,” Magnay continued as she chronicled Navalny’s run-ins with Russian authorities.
Note how Magney stated that Monday’s protests were “the second round” of public demonstrations. The first round of protests occurred in late March of 2017. During those corruption protests, there were hundreds of arrests and the Trump administration condemned them as well. The Big Three Networks also ignored the administration’s condemnation back then as well.
At the time, the State Department said: “The United States strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout Russia on Sunday … Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an affront to core democratic values.”
It’s easy to understand why the Big Three Networks would want to omit that detail from their reports: it goes against their Trump/Russia narrative. Throughout their coverage of the Russia investigation, they often play up how well President Trump speaks about Russian President Vladimir Putin. But they rarely mention when the Trump administration denounces the Russian government, whether it’s in a press briefing or on the floor of the United Nations.
Transcript below:
CNN
The Lead
June 12, 2017
4:50:50 PM Eastern
JAKE TAPPER: And other world news today. The White House this afternoon called on the Russian government to release demonstrators arrested earlier today in anti-corruption protests across Russia. Press Secretary Sean spacer calling the arrests, which included minors, an affront to, quote, “core democratic values.” One of those taken into custody, a well-known Russian opposition leader and Putin critic. And I want to get right to CNN’s Diana Magnay in St. Petersburg in Russia. Diana, how did these protests come about?
DIANA MAGNAY: Well, this is the second round of protests, Jake, called by Alexei Navalny, a Kremlin critic, and anti-corruption campaigner. And he's managed to galvanize tens of thousands of people in more than 100 cities across this country today, the second time that they came out. And the Kremlin, I think, has been taken back by the scale of these protests and has reacted both times by detaining hundreds of protests as most of them in Moscow and St. Petersburg. And I think he's hoping that that crushes the momentum that Navalny is trying to build, but it may not be that easy, Jake.
TAPPER: Diana, tell us more about the opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
MAGNAY: Well, he's a very interesting figure. He's an anti-corruption blogger. He's produced these videos on YouTube, which have been viewed millions of times, detailing the kind of yachts and estates belonging especially to the Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. And that really resonates with the young who feel that the political elite in this country lead a very, very different life when many normal people can't really scrape past the poverty line.
Navalny himself is campaigning to run for president in next year's elections, and it's unclear whether he will because of a lightly spurious embezzlement conviction. That means that the laws in this country may mean he can't run for public office. But I think with these protests he's trying to put pressure on the Kremlin so if they block him from running it will appear illegitimate and against the public will. And on his campaign trail so far he's been sprayed with antiseptic, you’ll see him with a green face, burns to the eye. But he is a very interesting figure and someone that the Kremlin will be watching and I think possibly fearing. Jake.
TAPPER: Indeed. Diana Magnay in St. Petersburg, Russia, thanks so much.
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
At least he’s honest. Strident liberal comic Seth Meyers admitted he wasn’t quite sure how to “walk the fine line” of fairness when it comes to his frequent political shots. Asked by Today's Al Roker on Monday, Meyers offered this spin: “We obviously have a lot of discussions about taste and what we're aiming to get out there, but we try to have a little integrity to our work and hopefully it comes across.”
A few seconds earlier, Roker wondered, “How tough is it walking that fine line?” The Late Night With Seth Meyers host replied, “I don't know. I don't think we think about it as a fine line so much.”
Clearly, Meyers has no idea. In March of 2016, the host went on a humorless rant by whining about Christians and comparing religious freedom bills to segregation.
In On May 2, 2017, he compared Donald Trump to a serial killer. On May 9, he brought on Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood, to bash pro-lifers.
So, yeah. Seth Meyers doesn’t know how to be anything other than a late night, humorless hack.
A transcript of the exchange is below:
 Today6/12/17 8:25am ET
HODA KOTB: You've had a lot of cool guests, obviously. Is there somebody you're jonesing for, you’re saying I need this person on?
SETH MEYERS: Well, you know, look, Sean Spicer — I keep saying — I think Sean Spicer the hardest job in America and I have a lot of questions about it because as far as me, people keep saying do you have to change your stories at the last minute? I can't imagine what his day is like in the ten minutes before he goes out to give a press conference, what could actually break and change his entire outlook.
AL ROKER: How tough is it walking that fine line?
MEYERS: I don't know. I don't think we think about it as a fine line so much. We obviously have a lot of discussions about taste and what we're aiming to get out there but we try to have a little integrity to our work and hopefully it comes across.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment